Legal Research
Cases
Reynolds v WA Police

Reynolds v WA Police

Link copied

Case Copied 9 April 2025 49 min read

Contents

On this page

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION:   REYNOLDS -v- WA POLICE [2025] WASC 104
CORAM:   GETHING J
HEARD:   20 MARCH 2025
DELIVERED          :   9 APRIL 2025
FILE NO/S:   SJA 1073 of 2024
BETWEEN:   KELLAN JOHN REYNOLDS
Appellant
AND
WA POLICE
Respondents

ON APPEAL FROM:
For File No:   SJA 1073 of 2024
Jurisdiction              :   MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   MAGISTRATE E O'DONNELL
File Number            :   JO 1792 of 2023; PE 2382 of 2023; AL 2414 of 2022

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Single judge appeal - Application for leave to appeal conviction - Whether magistrate erred in removing the accused from the courtroom for misbehaviour and continuing with the trial

Legislation:

Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA) s 88, 140, 172
Magistrates Court (General Rules) 2005 (WA) pt 4
Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA) s 15, s 16

Result:

Leave to appeal on grounds 8, 13, 15, 20 and 21
Appeal allowed
Matters remitted to the Magistrates Court in Perth for retrial

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	In Person
Respondents	:	Mr G Stockton

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	In Person
Respondents	:	State Solicitor's Office

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2018] HCA 3; (2018) 262 CLR 157
Branch v Town of Victoria Park [2013] WASC 231
Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd v Ga [2022] VSC 438
Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Deighton [2024] WASC 410
Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Moir [2024] WASC 319
Connell v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited [2023] WASCA 48
Cousins v WA Police [2025] WASC 39
Ebatarinja v Deland [1998] HCA 62; (1998) 194 CLR 444
Ex parte Tubman; Re Lucas [1970] 72 SR (NSW) 555
Fisher v O'Hehir [2020] WASC 353
Fisher v O'Hehir [2023] WASCA 19
Frigger v The State of Western Australia [2024] WASCA 159
Glew v Frank Jasper Pty Ltd [2010] WASCA 87
Grassby v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 1
In re Andrew Dunn and The Morning Bulletin Ltd [1932] St R Qd 1
Kelly v Fiander [2023] WASC 187
Kelly v Fiander [2024] WASC 275
Kwok v City of Subiaco [2023] WASC 307
Mansell v Mignacca-Randazzo [2013] WASC 66
McCagh v Rural Bank (a division of Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Ltd) [2024] WASCA 68
Mills v Hendriksen [2008] WASC 79
Moleirinho v Talbot & Olivier Lawyers Pty Ltd [2014] WASCA 65
Morgan v Kramer [2019] WASC 68
Neil v Nott [1994] HCA 23; (1994) 68 ALJR 509; (1994) 121 ALR 148
Nobarani v Mariconte [2018] HCA 36
O'Connell v Western Australia [2012] WASCA 96
Pelechowski v Registrar, Court of Appeal [1999] HCA 19
Prazmo v Director of Public Prosecutions [2024] WASC 386
R v DAJ [2005] QCA 40
R v Sweet [2021] QDC 216
Reynolds v Nonkovic [2023] WASC 326
Reynolds v WA Police [2024] WASC 67
Reynolds v WA Police [No 2] [2025] WASC 10
Saad v Baron [2012] WASC 507
Sami v Duggan [2011] WASC 304
Samuels v The State…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Reynolds v WA Police and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] WASC 104
Decision Date: 9 APRIL 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Reynolds v WA Police was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The appellant, Reynolds, appealed against a conviction for assault occasioning bodily harm. The trial was conducted before a magistrate who removed Reynolds from the courtroom for misbehaviour, subsequently continuing with the trial in his absence. Reynolds contended that this constituted a significant procedural error warranting a new trial.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the magistrate's decision to remove Reynolds and proceed with the trial constituted a substantial procedural error. Reynolds argued that being removed from the courtroom deprived him of a fair trial, as he was unable to observe or participate in critical stages of the proceedings. The respondent, the State, contended that the magistrate acted within their discretion to maintain courtroom order and that Reynolds' absence did not prejudice the fairness of the trial.

The court held that the magistrate's decision to remove Reynolds and continue with the trial was a significant procedural error. The court found that Reynolds' removal deprived him of the opportunity to participate in the proceedings and observe the examination of witnesses. This, in turn, impacted Reynolds' ability to adequately defend himself. The court concluded that such an error warranted setting aside the conviction and ordering a new trial. The court emphasised the importance of procedural fairness in criminal trials, particularly the right of an accused to be present throughout their trial.

Orders